Talk:Substitutionary atonement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Christianity Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments The following comments were left by the assessors: (edit · refresh) The article is intended to persuade rather than inform. It also has the following errors. Introduction: 1. Substitution theory is a doctrine in some Christian theologies. (plural not singular) 2. The relationship between the quote from John 3:16 and substitution theory is not evident from the verse alone. 3. The scripture is not considered the primary basis of theology for all Christians. 4 Incarnation theory is not universally Christian. Their are many unitarians. Meaning of Doctrine: 1.The author lacks basic understanding of judaism. Animal sacrifice was not always a means of atonement. The author does not specify when the Hebrew Scripture affirms this practice. 2. "works" is not defined. 3. The author holds that "works" is a widespread belief in many religions. (The concept is ambiguous as it applies to eastern religions because the ontology morality and behavior is obscure to most westerners, its not true for Jews who celebrate Yom Kippur to a God of mercy, mercy is also a part of the islamic faith) 4 Christ death is the "heart" of some Christian faiths. 5. The author quotes only John the theologies of the other gospels differ so to establish a biblical basis for a theological position as the author does more than one gospel or biblical text is necessary. Belief in the Doctrine. 1. The author states that "all branches of christianity" endorse substitution theory as a central meaning of christ's death. It then goes on to state that the eastern orthodox consider it to be a minor part of "a single doctrine of the cross and resurrection." either this is a contradiction or the author has needlessly referred to separate body of thought with eastern orthodoxy and hence the caveat is unneeded. 2. Their is a pointless tangent about the muslim faith. Key Bible Texts: 1.Author should specify that christian belief holds old testament prophecy to conform with the death of a messiah. 2. The quoted sources are only unequivocal proofs of the doctrine for some believers.

	Calvinism Portal Substitutionary atonement falls within the scope of WikiProject Calvinism, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Calvinism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familier with the guidelines.
Stub	This article has been rated as stub-Class on the Project's quality scale. See comments
High	This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

[edit] Notes

Isn't Hugo Grotius associated more with the Governmental theory of the atonement? --Victoria h 05:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but this is a form of substitutionary atonement. KHM03 11:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

This page is overly simplistic. It assumes that all Christians hold the substitutionary view of the atonement. The entire Eastern Church (both Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox) denies this view. Additionally, it is inappropriate to assert that the Epistle to the Romans "explains" the substitutionary atonement without giving any evidence that it even teaches it. Saying the Christ died "for" us is not the same as saying that Christ died "as" us (or "in our place").

[edit] Added statements by Church Fathers relating to Substitutionary Atonement

Hello, I wanted to provide some record of the less developed doctrine of Substitution found in the Early Church. I hope others will be willing to let it stay, although I would certainly appreciate anyone editing the rather sloppy aspects of the addition. Also, feel free to let me know if I have violated any rules in making the addition as I did. Thanks. Wascott

edit-I have removed the addition for the moment --especially because I need a better way for providing the links.

[edit] Satisfaction

This article is unclear as to the relation of this theory to the Atonement (Satisfaction view) theory.

[edit] Removed first paragraph

The first paragraph was written in non-encyclopedic style and possibly not NPOV, and inappropriate as an introduction. It defined substitutionary atonement as a general principle rather than as a specifically Christian doctrine. But through Google I was unable to find any significant use of the term in any context other than Christian theology. So the correct introduction in my opinion is to state the SA is a Christian theological doctrine. The content that was in the first paragraph might be reuseable later in the body text if rewritten. Mrhsj 00:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Distinguish between Penal Substitution and Substitutionary Atonement

This page needs to distinguish between Penal Substitution and Substitutionary Atonement. The term "Substitutionary Atonement" covers any view of the atonement which includes the idea of Jesus standing as a substitute for part or all of mankind. Such substitution is not necessarily penal (Jesus takes the punishment man deserves) but could also be merely satisfactory (Jesus satisfies the demands of God's honour by suffering obediently - see Atonement (Satisfaction view)).

Since this page describes the specifically penal view of substitutionary atonement, I propose that it should be moved to the Penal substitution page which currently links here, and a shorter article should be written which links to the different forms of substitutionary atonement. 193.63.62.252 07:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] page is original resarch

While the research is interesting here, it is original which is against Wiki policy. It is also rather flawed. While it is true that there are elements of punishment in the atonement theories of the Church Fathers, these quotes are taken out of the larger context of their teaching. Augustine did not teach penal substitution, but what is called the "mousetrap" theory which is a version of the ransom theory. Similarly Athanasius focused on the cross overcoming death, not on penal substitution. Taken out of context, these quotes are quite miss leading and historically inaccurate. They ignore the larger teaching and amount to cherry picking. One could argue that there are aspects of punishment found in earlier writings, but it is simply false to claim that penal substitution was taught by any of the church fathers. I move that they be stricken and replaced with a historical account of the development of the doctrine based on verifiable sources. sharktacos 22:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Near as I can tell, it's substantially not actually original research, it's based on a forthcoming book, Pierced for our transgressions. You are right, though, that it shouldn't be stated as fact, according to WP:NPOV, as it's debated, but neither should your beliefs about the history of this matter - which I believe are flawed (and, more to the point, relevant published literature argues is flawed.) TJ 00:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Then the statements should be given with sources to the book, and put alongside of the counter arguments which have a great deal of published literature as well. Since the book is not available in the US I have not read it, but I honestly have a hard time imagining that anyone could seriously claim that Athanasius, Augustine, and Aquinas taught penal substitution. That their respective understandings of the atonement contained elements of Christ taking our punishment, yes. That they therefore taught the specifically Reform doctrine of Penal Substitution, no. Sharktacos 05:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Links

Does anyone know where I can go to read about not what supposedly took place but how it supposedly works? I don't see anything like that on this page. What I mean is, this page goes through a great deal about what people believe Jesus's death did, but what I'm looking for is, how it is that Jesus's death can cause people to be absolved of thier sins. I don't know if this is the right place to ask this sort of question, but it would be very helpful to my research.

Kronos o 21:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orthodox disagreement with the West

The Orthodox do not accept the theory of substitutionary atonement: God the Father is not infinitely offended, and requires no infinitely valuable victim. That idea arises from German legal theory regarding the proportionality of the offense to the offended, which is not Hebrew, Greek, or Biblical thinking. In contrast to the atonement soteriological view, Christ dies as an event in the plan of rescue of Mankind and conquest of death/hades, to make a place for Mankind, to release the dead, but His death is in no wise a payment. Cyranorox (talk) 21:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)